Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2010

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

Kept status

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 15:06, 31 August 2010 [1].

0.999...

edit
Notified: Melchoir, AzaToth Wikiproject Mathematics

I would like to put up this article for review because I feel that since the four years that it became a featured article in 2006 that it has gone unmaintained and has lost some of the features then that made it the featured article that it once was. A couple of my concerns are:

  • There are a few redlinks in the article.
  • There are a few external links within the article content.
  • The references may have rotted. (example)
  • There is not enough of a balance between words and numbers.

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Red links are not part of the FA criteria. External links in the body of the article can easily be moved to the proper section or removed. Link rot is a valid concern, but we don't need an FAR to fix the dead links. As for problems with the "balance between words and numbers", you'll have to be more specific. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the red links as well, Ic no problems with them. The reference rot i don't quite get? What's that supposed to mean exactly? One concern I see however, is that the reference list is imho way to long in particular since there is further reading section as well. The references should be integrated into the footnotes if they are used as actual sources or otherwise removed for the most part, I see no point in listing various well known math who deal with the article content mostly as a sidenote only. The not enough balance between word and numbers I don't quite get either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the only inline link I could find – as far as I can see the rest are in the references – and I think the only dead link (in two places). I can't see any other link that's broken – the example you give is to a paper behind a paywall but that's true of most of the academic references. As for balance between words and numbers I too am not sure what you mean: maths articles tend to be formula and number-heavy, usually more so than this one.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The References section is for sources that are cited in the footnotes. The Further reading section is for potential sources that are not cited. More information is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout). Melchoir (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, in this case the article uses the notes for the footnotes and references is mostly a collection of general or additonal references. In any case imho that list way too long and mostly unnecessary.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example? Melchoir (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for example what?--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
an example of an item in the References section that isn't cited in a footnote Melchoir (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please see here for further deadlinks (check for the ones in red). Dana boomer (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any in red. There were two in orange:
http://arxiv.org/abs/math.NT/0605182 - which gives an abstract to the article and a PDF download link, I'm not sure why it's flagging it
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/berz92automatic.html - fixed --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do see one in red, but I do not see why it is red. The link works fine. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There don't seem to be any dead links in the article at the moment. Ucucha 12:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User images don't usually require sourcing, as per WP:OI. It says "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Good images in articles in abstract maths topics like this are invariably created by users, as photos are no use to illustrate the topic and scans from e.g. textbooks are too low quality. As for licences any free licence is fine.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy I've referenced is WP:IUP. I'm not talking about the subject matter being illustrated; I'm talking about the illustration itself; WP:OI is not germane. Эlcobbola talk 15:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from WP:IUP: "A good source for a self-created image is to state "It is my own work." and not just use a tag that indicates it is your own work ({{self}} or {{PD-self}} for examples)." Sp assuming that Melchoir created these images, then Melchoir must state so, presumably on the files "Summary" section? Paul August ☎ 16:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That's all that's needed. Эlcobbola talk 16:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ WP:IUP does not require it, but recommends it. That means the point 3.) is satisfied, i.e. the pictures are in line with WP:IUP, they simply do fall under the category "good source", which however is completely different from failing WP:IUP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see this as a recommendation not a requirement (my "must" above meant in order to satisfy Эlcobbola's concern.) Paul August ☎ 16:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See number two under "Requirements" at IUP: "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer." A template that says "I, the copyright holder..." does not satisfy either: declaration that you hold the copyright does not address the origin ("where the image came from"). Declaration that you hold the copyright does not address verifiability. This has been in the policy for years; it's not creeping. Эlcobbola talk 16:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it seems like a silly recommendation, given that the self template says "I, the copyright holder of this work" in boldface. Sounds like WP:IUP is instruction creeping. In any case, I've added the requested notes. Melchoir (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I don't see much wrong with this, and certainly nothing that justifies an FAR being initiated. In fact I think it's quite good, and pretty approachable for a mathematical topic; I enjoyed reading it and I learned something. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Additional closing note - This is being closed per the comments of several editors who, having performed checks on the article, have noted that they don't believe a full FARC is necessary. Dana boomer (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 23:09, 20 August 2010 [2].

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

edit

Review commentary

edit
WP Video games, WP Nintendo and User talk:Pagrashtak notified
I can't find the WP Video games notification-- where is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now archived at [3] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it passes 1c without no refs in the entire Plot and Synopsis sections. I don't see the need of the second paragraph of Settings and I think is too long.
  • Image File:Zora.JPG is not really needed, Link with a mask on it would be better. Also the size is fine but the resolution could be better.
  • The text is choppy in some places.
  • I don't think it is needed to describe Termina full-detailed. In other Zelda articles there's not such a thing.
  • Ref 38 url goes to Famitsu.com, not the actual site, and does not say the number of the publication.
  • Not all refs say Retrieved on...
  • There are links in this article with broken #section.
  • I will add citation needed.

I think other articles in the series are much better. OboeCrack (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a note about the plot; plot sections can usually be sourced to the work itself. Many GAs and FAs don't use footnotes in the plot section since it's implied that the work itself is being used as the source for the plot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Large quantities of the Synopsis and Gameplay are un-sourced. Somebody might can look at old revisions to see if some references were removed, that can be reused. Although, all the revisions where it was premoted/reviewed, there were no sources for that content. So I doubt it exists. Unless those sections get rewritten and sourced, I don't think it is good enough for GA, let alone FA. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As TenPoundHammer points out, generally in articles like this it is assumed that the work itself is being cited, so that's why there are no citations (it would be different if we were talking about Majora's Mask in another article, for example.) Quality of images is not an issue for FA status; whether that image meets WP:NFCC is. If you're going to delist on prose, you're going to have to point out actionable examples. Really, this could have been done on the talk page, but... *sigh* This isn't an up-or-down vote, the point is to improve articles before carting them here and/or delisting them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't see that. The review was posted on the wrong page, so I commented where the link on the talkpage took me. I guess I agree. The plot and maybe gameplay can be sourced by the actual game. I remove my vote, which is apparently not how FAR's work. If it does get improved with the comments posted here(such as the Famitsu link), then I guess it is fine. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do agree with the nominator that FAs are supposed to be Wikipedia's best content, and this doesn't really seem like we gave it our all. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The [citation needed]s are of concern, and I see a few two-sentence paragraphs. Also I'm concerned about comprehensiveness, since about half the refs are from IGN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give me something actionable on the comprehensive comment? What specifically is missing from this article that makes it not comprehensive? 1(b) says nothing about having too many references from one publisher. Pagrashtak 15:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything, it really just needs a stiff copyedit after some expansion. I think given the amount of time that has passed we can find more content about its development and reception. The synopsis section could also probably be tightened, I'll try to get to it when I can. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put some work in, mostly to references and links. I'll work on the other problems as I have time. If there are any more ref issues, let me know or mark them and I'll see what I can do. What was the problem with Zora.JPG exactly? Pagrashtak 02:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criterion of concern are prose, comprehensiveness, sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I've been away too long. ZeldaMMbox.jpg looks like it has both a source and rationale. Can you be more specific about what is lacking? Pagrashtak 20:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's unclear. To use File:ZeldaMMbox.jpg as an example: It needs a source. The only non-rationale text is "The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask boxcover. Copyright Nintendo, 2000", which is a description of the image - not a source. Who took the photo? What website is it from? See WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#10A. It needs a "specific and detailed rationale" - not just a rationale. "It is used to represent a well known and significant video game" is neither detailed nor specific. Represent what aspect(s)? Why is that representation important? (I'm not saying it isn't; I'm saying it needs to be articulated). Эlcobbola talk 19:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source is Nintendo (as stated), who holds the copyright from its publication in 2000. Does it matter if I got it directly from one of Nintendo's websites or from Amazon? That doesn't have any impact on the copyright status. I revised the rationale on the first image. If it's acceptable I'll do the second. Pagrashtak 05:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and redid the second image as well. I don't know who took the screenshot, but it should be a moot point as the copyright is held by Nintendo regardless. Please let me know how the rationales stand. Pagrashtak 04:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a moot point - the source of an image is very important. If you can't find the source, then remove the image and take a shot yourself or similar. Ryan Norton 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the source of an image isn't important, please don't put words in my mouth. This image has been removed from the article. Pagrashtak 01:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "Nintendo" is not a verifiable source - it's a publisher. It's akin to using "Weblogs, Inc." instead of "Fletcher, JC (2009-04-07). "VC/WiiWare Tuesday: Majora's Mask arrives in another region". www.joystiq.com. Weblogs, Inc."; the former would not be acceptable. The source does more than confirm copyright status; it allows a non-"expert" reader to verify the authorship information provided, to verify provenience (e.g. that it's the cover used in a given market, not a fan interpretation), etc. To that end, any verifiable source that accomplishes that (e.g. an Amazon product page) would be sufficient. Эlcobbola talk 12:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Nintendo is more than just the publisher in this case. Per my comment to Ryan Norton below, the Image use policy (by use of the word "or") seems to indicate that giving the copyright holder is sufficient. In any event, I have added a link to allow the reader to verify the authenticity of the image. Do you have a response to the image use policy regarding screenshots? The policy regarding source says "For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of", which the removed screenshot states clearly. I feel like you're asking for more than is required by policy. Pagrashtak 15:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last edit is from 21. July. Where is the link? The relevant part of policy is the requirement: "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified". The "or" verbiage is in regards to the summary, which is a different element; note that even that section says "provide specific details about the image's origin". For what it's worth, WP:IUP is indeed terribly written; this, I think, is a more accessible distillation. Эlcobbola talk 10:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, I must have not saved. It's there now. Pagrashtak 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, image issues resolved. Эlcobbola talk 21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general policy is a bit messy. Wikipedia:Non-free_content in particular WP:NFCC#10A has the more correct version however. "Identification of the source of the material supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder" The real problem is the "source" explanation at WP:IUP can be a bit misleading. Ryan Norton 09:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is work going on this? It looks like not much has really been happening on the article... Feel free to ping the reviewers who have commented above when you feel you have addressed their concerns. As one of the two oldest nominations on this page, this should be progressing! Dana boomer (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There appears to be some confusion on the work vs. publisher on a lot of the refs (I made an edit as an example - all the GameSpot ones are wrong as well - GameSpot is the _work_, CBS Interactive is the publisher - another example). Also, several print magazine refs appear to be missing page numbers. Ryan Norton 06:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist until the image source concerns raised above are addressed. "From a video game fan listing website" does not qualify as a source. Ryan Norton 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that "From a video game fan listing website" does not qualify as a source—in fact, no one on this page has made that claim. The image is no longer in the article. Pagrashtak 01:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but there's still no source for the box image either. Ryan Norton 04:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the strikes. I'm confused with this source discussion. Going back to the screenshot that I removed—the image page says "Screenshot from The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask" and "Copyright Nintendo". Wikipedia's Image use policy states this regarding image sources: "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of (the more detail the better). Do not put credits in images themselves." (emphasis mine) File:Majora's Mask image.png is indeed a screenshot, and the image description page says what the image is a screenshot of. This seems to satisfy the policy for image source. Later in the policy, it states "Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from" (emphasis mine on "or"). In both images, the copyright holder is clearly stated. I feel like these images are in compliance with my reading of the policy. What am I missing? Pagrashtak 06:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct, it does appear to pass the wording of the general image use policy (although not fair use). Also, apologies if my earlier comment offended you; thanks for improving the work/publisher stuff as well (BTW for future reference you can just say GameSpot instead of www.gamespot.com for example but technically either is correct) - all is left is the page numbers, but I'm not going to object on that myself. Ryan Norton 06:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delist - Looking through the article, I have seen sourcing problems. The main sourcing problems are no references in the first paragraph in the "Gameplay" section; as well as some parts in "Masks and transformations". Also, I saw comprehensive problems in the "Music" section because of it not having enough info as it should have, like its soundrack article. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 16:20, 12 August 2010 [4].

History of the Yosemite area

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: User talk:mav, nominator and main contributor Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently significantly lacks inline citations and some of the images lack sources. [Article was promoted about 5 years ago and has had no reviews since.] Mav has started is planning to add inline citations but we agreed it should be brought here in any case, to give it proper scrutiny. Mav was aiming to work on it this weekend. Tom B (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images where sources need to be stated:

File:Miwok-Paiute ceremony in 1872 at current site of Yosemite Lodge.jpeg
File:Captain John Paiute.jpg
 YFile:Yosemite Falls by Thomas Ayres.jpg
File:Painting of Wawona Hotel by Thomas Hill.jpeg
File:Frederick Law Olmstead.jpeg
 YFile:Josiah whitney.jpg
File:Mother Curry in front of Camp Curry.jpeg
File:Dairy herd grazing in Yosemite Valley in 1918.jpeg
File:Fallen Monarch and F Troop of US Cavalry.jpeg
File:Hetch Hetchy Valley.jpg

Alt text added to all article images by mav, the only dead external link has been fixed and the only ambiguous link has been disambiguated. Tom B (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still have all the major sources used to write this article. Citing shouldn't be an issue. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Binksternet. I know this article is about all of Yosemite, but its treatment of Hetch Hetchy is scant. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One initial impression is that the fight over Hetch Hetchy Valley is devoid of actors who first pushed for its use as a reservoir—there is only the Muir/Pinchot argument mentioned. How about SF Mayor (later Senator) James D. Phelan who used USGS surveyor Joseph B. Lippincott as his flunky, to establish rights to the river's water? Phelan filed for the water rights in his own name, not the city's. UC Berkeley professor Gray Brechin writes briefly of it here. Pinchot's involvement is not explained in the article; one would expect him to be on Muir's side from his avowed love of conservation, but he was instead aligned with Secretary of the Interior James R. Garfield and President Roosevelt, who backed Phelan's suggestion that the Hetch Hetchy Valley could be used for the betterment of the greater SF Bay Area, while preserving the Yosemite Valley from the same fate—the one sacrificed for the other.
      Other info used to expand that section. I'll try to add your suggested points later. But the detail should be in the Hetch Hetchy article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is largely resolved now; any more detail is more appropriate for the Hetch Hetchy article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Phelan and Lippincott now mentioned. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Plans are being studied for the removal of the dam, and alteration of the Hetch Hetchy water system to compensate for the resulting water loss." This sentence needs a cite, and a statement of which group is involved, and a dash of salt, as the chance of the dam actually being removed is exceedingly slim.
      Could not verify so sentence was removed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead says the Sierra Club was involved in trying to save Hetch Hetchy, but the article section only mentions Muir.
      Sierra Club added with a cite. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Author Robert W. Righter argues that the battle over Hetch Hetchy catalyzed the whole notion of modern environmentalism, in his 2006 book The Battle over Hetch Hetchy: America's Most Controversial Dam and the Birth of Modern Environmentalism.
      Article now mentions importance of the fight to save Hetch Hetchy. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article does not mention Lake Eleanor in Yosemite, once included in SF City Engineer Carl E. Grunsky's proposal for two dams: one at Hetch Hetchy and one at Lake Eleanor. Later, he calculated the lake to be large enough to supply San Francisco's water needs for a century, without touching Hetch Hetchy. Grunsky and Phelan instead focused on damming Hetch Hetchy. SF owned the rights to all of Lake Eleanor's water, but abandoned them by not acting. Righter, 2006, p. 79.
      Article now mentions Lake Elanor. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The most intense personal battle of wills was between Muir and Phelan. Righter, 2006, p. 50.
      I think that is more appropriate for the Hetch Hetchy article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hetch Hetchy water is so pure that it is exempt from filtration requirements.[5] San Franciscans, in general, appreciate the superb water they get. San Francisco's Anchor Brewing acknowledges the source of "fabulous water" that goes in their beers.[6]
      That is more appropriate for the Hetch Hetchy article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No mention of how profitable the park concession has been. In 1988, concessioners pulled in $500M but paid the US $12.5M for the franchise.[7]
      Info added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No mention of the history of the Yosemite Park & Curry Company, how it became a subsidiary of MCA along with Universal Pictures and Motown. Nothing about how Japanese conglomerate Matsushita bought MCA for $1.6B in 1990, and what effect that had on park operations. In 1992–1993, the concession changed back into US hands with a winning bid from Delaware North Companies. Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts,[8] or DNC Parks and Resorts at Yosemite, Inc., is still the main concessioner, who employs some 1,800 people during summer peak season.[9]
      Info on Yosemite National Park Company and YP&CC (including the MCA purchase) added to the Curry Company info already in the article.--mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)
      DNC mentioned. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No tracking of how many visitors per year at various points in the park's history.
      Info added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the human impact section, there are no general statistics describing an overview of the reduction of animal and plant species over time, and in the same vein, no overview of the introduction of non-native species such as Yellow Star-Thistle.[10] Did any animal and plant populations suffer a dramatic decrease? An increase? All we have examples of are grizzlies and bighorns. How about fish? The Great Grey Owl, Pacific Fisher, Mount Lyell shrew and Yosemite Toad are endangered. The Peregrine Falcon is a success story.
      Peregrine Falcon, Great Grey Owl, Yellow Star-Thistle (and other invasive plants) mentioned. Decrease of native plant and animals mentioned. An article on the management of Yosemite's resources would contain detail on these topics. Still looking to add a bit more to this article though. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 20:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diseases? When did White pine blister rust come to the sugar pines?
      Rust mentioned along with when it entered California. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No mention of fishing or hunting, skiing or boating. No mountain biking in the backcountry or regular bicycles in the valley; no white water rafting or rock-climbing. Since this is a history article, describing the introduction or cessation of various major recreational activities seems appropriate. When was the Badger Pass ski resort built? When did cross-country skiing treks start? When was the first golf course laid? The second? When did one of them disappear?
      Impact of fishing, hunting, skiing and golf added. Opening of Badger Pass, first golf course and closing of second added. Climbing and possibly other activities to be added but, with the exception of climbing, it may be difficult to put other activities in a historical perspective. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)
      Mention of climbing and Camp 4 added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)
    • What years did the Cadillac dealership operate?
      That is more appropriate for the Yosemite Valley article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How much poaching historically; how much today?
      Poaching mentioned. I could not find any RS that specifically answers your question though... Any pointers? --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)
    • How could they possibly cancel Firefall, an admittedly popular spectacle?
      Reason added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When did lumbering begin in the park? 1905? In the 1920s, the National Forest Service tried to take/seize/transfer 30,000 acres of Yosemite National Park lands, rich in sugar pine trees and including two important sequoia groves.[11] The article hints that lumbering petered out in the 1940s. However, some kinds of logging continue: as late as 2004 an injunction was made to stop logging in Yosemite Valley.[12]
      I looked but could not find a RS saying when logging began or ended in Yosemite. What we have are indications that logging started some time before Muir arrived and was banned outright in designated wilderness areas. I assume there has been some selected logging permitted outside the wilderness areas but can't confirm that. Any suggestions? --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 18:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The boundaries of Yosemite have changed over time. How, why and when?
      More info added about that. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linda Greene's 1987 History should be used much more heavily as a very high quality reference.[13](PDF) or [14](HTML)
      Many cites from that work now added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 2002, plans were thwarted that would have put an airliner-capable airport near Yosemite, to serve the area. Are there other significant plans that did not happen?
    • How much pavement has covered Yosemite over time? How many parking spaces?
      Mention of acreage under parking lots added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When was the jail built?
      Greene 1987, p. 561 gives a date of between 1880 and 1890 but also says that the jail has not historical significance. So it will not be mentioned in the article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the suggestions! I'll address each point once I'm done citing the article in its current form. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the above is being addressed as I go through the sources I used to write this article. Still working. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was bold and went into the article to some proofing-type editing. On the whole I believe the article is comprehensive. I had printed the article on April 29 so I could read a paper copy and REALLY like the subsectioning and rearranging of the Human Impact section. Good job!! Bettymnz4 (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the kind words and edits! :) --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing, images and comprehensiveness. This has been at FAR for a month, so moving it here to give it a bit of a push. Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working in bits and pieces as I have time. Dates in citations are all messed up-- some are ISO, some are month day, year and some are day month year. Most of the image captions are incorrectly punctuated (WP:MOS#Captions). Also, logical punctuation, WP:PUNC. More recent history is a bad section heading, per WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. Ellipses have spaces, WP:MOS#Ellipses. I'll keep chipping away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's some text in "Recreational activities" that doesn't seem related to History, and seems to belong in the main article, if anywhere. I'll work more on the text after the issues above are cleaned up-- pls ping me again if I forget! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all of the minor MOS issues, save for the "more recent history" heading, which Mav will need to fix. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"More recent history" changed to "Mid 20th century and later." --mav (reviews needed) 19:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. This is a considerable piece of work, and the citation issue has largely been addressed, but not quite. For instance, every direct quotation has to be cited, but this one from the More recent history section isn't: "Back then little regard was given to historic preservation, the thought being that the 'highest use' was preserving and restoring natural scenery." I'll leave you to ponder on what Tony1 might say about "the thought being", but I don't think he'd be eulogising over it.
    Rewritten to "Little regard was given to historic preservation; the highest use was thought to be the preservation and restoration of natural scenery." All quotes now cited. --mav (reviews needed) 19:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few other points:

    • Some of the capitalisation doesn't seem consistent. For instance, throughout the article we see "Valley" and "valley", when apparently referring to the same thing, as in "... saw the major features of the Valley laid out before them (they named the overlook Mt. Beatitude). Attached to Savage's unit was Dr Lafayette Bunnell, the company physician who later wrote about his awestruck impressions of the valley". In addition, if it's going to be "Valley", then I don't see why it's not also "Park" when referring to the national park, rather than "park".
      Changed "the Valley" to "Yosemite Valley" in many places and simply de-capped Valley in others. A few "Grove"s fixed as well. --mav (reviews needed) 19:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Since then, 89% of the park has been set aside ...". The MoS suggests this and other similar occurences in the article ought to be written "89 percent".
      Fixed throughout article. --mav (reviews needed) 19:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The writing is still unclear and awkward in a few places. For instance, in the lead: "Access to the park by tourists improved in the early years of the park ...". Access by tourists improved? Shouldn't this be for tourists?
      Rewritten to "Conditions in Yosemite Valley were made more hospitable to humans and access to the park area were improved in the late 19th century." --mav (reviews needed) 19:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and edits - I'll address each point this weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demote. Poorly written. There's an awkwardness about the whole thing. Here are examples from the top. It needed a good, thorough treatment by copy-editors and others at the start of this process. Put it out to pasture and re-nominate, I think.

  • The opening sentence is faulty; this is not a good sign: "The known history of the Yosemite area started with Ahwahnechee and Paiute peoples who inhabited the ...". "the" after "with"; a comma before "who".
    Rewritten to "For over 3,000 years Sierra Miwok, Mono, Paiute, and other Native American groups have lived in the central Sierra Nevada region of California that now includes Yosemite National Park." --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second sentence: comma after "time" ... or ... I'm unsure what the intended meaning is. Um ... "When the first ... area in [when?]".
    Rewritten to "When European Americans first visited the Yosemite area, a band of Miwok-speaking Native Americans called the Ahwahnechee lived in Yosemite Valley." --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were ceded to CF by whom or what? Oregon?
    Federal government added. --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jurisdiction was under? This is odd. "The park was first under the control of ...". But when? Forty years or four months before "1917"?
    Rewritten to "The U.S. 4th Cavalry Regiment had jurisdiction over the national park from 1891 to 1914, followed by a brief period of civilian stewardship." --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Euro-American" is unfamiliar: does it mean "European"?
    Changed to "European American" --mav (reviews needed) 18:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "California" not linked and then linked. First time (if at all, for such a well-known entity—isn't there a better link, to a section in or daughter article to the "California" article?).
    I hate the practice of linking to subsections. Link removed. --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where there's an "of" to the right put a "the" to the left: "The development and use of".
    Each instance of "of the" checked to see if that sentence was missing another "the" and fixed as needed. --mav (reviews needed) 20:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubby sentence boundaries, for example: "James Savage was running a mining operation and trading camp on the Merced River 10 miles (16 km) west of Yosemite Valley by 1850.[12] He ran a similar camp near Mariposa."
    Mention of second camp deleted b/c it did not have a cite. First sentence changed to "James Savage ran a mining operation and trading camp on the Merced River 10 miles (16 km) west of Yosemite Valley." --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On Thursday, March 27, of that year"—bumpety-bump.
    Day of the week is not important so removed. Actual year added. --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • You, at least eventually, have indicated on each of my other FACs/FARs you have commented on that you were OK with the prose. So I don't see why I won't be able to copyedit this article to your liking. Will conduct a big copyedit session on Saturday. --mav (reviews needed) 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specific points addressed above. I'll make sure to keep those in mind as I complete my copyedit to fix similar issues. --mav (reviews needed) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold since significant work is being done on the article and issues are being addressed.
Here are some things to look at after a quick look at some isolated parts:
"Administrators in the National Park Service felt that a single concessionaire in each national park would be more financially sound." Then later in the section it talks of concessionaires plural. Policy changed in the intervening time I presume but since the point was raised by the article it makes sense for it to be discussed more satisfactorily.
"Expansion of recreational activities has also impacted the park environment." I'm not a fan of the verb impact and the form impacted in particular. I associate it with dentists giving bad news.
"Feeding and viewing of American black bears was encouraged by park concessionaires." When? Even today? Also discussion of brown and black bears might be better combined in the same paragraph. The intervening paragraph about other animals seems awkward.
  • When that was stopped is answered later in that paragraph. But I removed the sentence since it was redundant. Black bear para moved to be below brown bear para. Too much info for a single paragraph. --mav (reviews needed) 17:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wildlife section doesn't seem to give an overall sense of the state of wildlife health and seems more like a patchwork of isolated facts. It's unclear if native wildlife diversity is going down, stabilizing, or rebounding. Are conservation efforts having any noticeable effect?
  • I'll see if I can find a RS to add a sentence about that, but this is a history article, not an article on wildlife management. --mav (reviews needed) 17:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked but could not find any comprehensive statement from a RS on the health of the Yosemite ecosystem or the overall effect that changes in policy have brought. All I can find are more examples of success stories and changes in policy whose aim is to advance preservation efforts. --mav (reviews needed) 16:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have changed some of these myself but I don't know if you'd prefer more control and to do it yourself during this review. If you don't mind my making my own edits, note that here and I'll make more proactive edits in the future if I see any quickly fixable items. Lambanog (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to copyedit all you like. :) I can't edit much at all during the week (brain is too tired after work to think much). But I will address each of your points this weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 01:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I've had a look through this article again since I made my initial comments, and I agree with Tony1 that it remains awkwardly written. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that if this was presented at FAC today then it would fail. I appreciate the work that's been done on this during the review, but there's a great deal more still to be done. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Any specific examples? I addressed each point raised by you and Tony and used those as a guide to find and fix similar issues. Do I need to revisit those? I've never had a FAR or FAC fail due to prose issues. But I'd like to improve my writing as needed. --mav (reviews needed) 21:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I reviewed each of your edits to the article and conducted another copyedit to catch issues similar to those you fixed and others I found. --mav (reviews needed) 02:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited to spot-check.

  • "Galen Clark was appointed by the commission as the grant's first guardian but neither Clark nor the commissioners had the authority to evict homesteaders. Josiah Whitney, the first director of the California Geological Survey, lamented that Yosemite Valley may meet the same fate as Niagara Falls at the time; become a tourist trap where proprietary interests place tolls on every bridge, path, trail, and viewpoint." Desperately needs a comma before "but". Do you mean "may have met", or perhaps "would meet"? I can't get a handle on the temporal meaning. The semicolon—I can't work out the relationship between the before and after.
  • Revised to "The commission appointed Galen Clark as the grant's first guardian, but neither Clark nor the commissioners had the authority to evict homesteaders. Josiah Whitney, the first director of the California Geological Survey, lamented that Yosemite Valley would meet the same fate as Niagara Falls. At that time, Niagara Falls was a tourist trap that had tolls on every bridge, path, trail, and viewpoint." I think I get your point and will look for and fix other examples of missing commas and time inconsistency. --mav (reviews needed) 12:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appropriated $60,000 to compensate the settlers.[38] Hutchings received $24,000 in compensation for his loss.[38]". A clearer relationship between the sentences would result from "appropriated $60,000 to compensate the settlers, of which Hutchings received $24,000.[38]" And the 38,38 consecutive ref tags are not desirable if one can avoid it.
    Done. I was trying to break-up a long sentence before but I'll look for and fix other similar issues. --mav (reviews needed) 13:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Access to the park and conditions in Yosemite Valley improved for tourists under Clark's on and off stewardship through 1896. Life on the valley floor was plagued by mosquitoes and the diseases they carry. So in 1878 Clark used dynamite to breach a recessional moraine in the valley that impounded a swamp behind it.[18] Tourism significantly increased after a Sacramento to Stockton extension of the First Transcontinental Railroad was completed in 1869 and the Central Pacific Railroad reached Merced in 1872."—"under Clark's on and off stewardship"—not compulsory, but I'd be inclined to hyphenate "on-and-off". But more serious is my inability to piece together the meaning of those four sentences. Perhaps it's my problem, not that of the prose, but ... (1) something good arose from his on-and-off stewardship? OK, but it's not straightforward. (2) "impounded" is hard to get ... do you mean "that had been trapping the waters that formed the swamp", or something like that? (3) So was it the dissipation of the swamp, the mosquitos and the disease that led to the increase in tourism, or was it the completion of the railroad. Or both. My head is spinning. (4) 1896 then we fling back in time, confusingly.
  • Revised to: "Conditions in Yosemite Valley and access to the park improved under Clark's on-and-off stewardship through 1896. In 1878, Clark used dynamite to breach a recessional moraine in the valley to drain a swamp behind it.[18] Tourism significantly increased after a Sacramento to Stockton extension of the First Transcontinental Railroad was completed in 1869 and the Central Pacific Railroad reached Merced in 1872." I'll try to find other cases of confusing prose and fix that as well. --mav (reviews needed) 13:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the first three paras in my spot-check. I'm sorry, I feel like a heel, but I really think this prose is not of FA standard. And it's been here for two and half months? Tony (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Similar issues found and fixed. Lots of commas added to distinguish independent clauses joined by conjunctions, dates, and quotes. I think fixing these commas significantly addresses the "awkward prose" concern. --mav (reviews needed) 16:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks very good to me. I like how much it has improved. —hike395 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 3 I have commented on and tried to address all above concerns. I think the main current objection, to "awkward prose," mostly stems from missing commas. Many commas have been added and several extensive copyedits conducted. These copyedits not only attempted to address specific examples brought up, but tried to find and fix similar issues that were not mentioned.
At this point, I could really use the help of an experienced copyeditor again to check the prose, since I've read and edited the prose so many times that is becoming difficult to find additional things to fix. I want to improve my writing, so specific examples from the article along with what rule of grammar is being violated will be most helpful. Direct edits are also welcome; I will make sure to study them to learn. It is hard to find sentences that are hard to understand when you already have memorized the meaning behind those sentences. --mav (reviews needed) 16:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. A lot of recent work has gone into this, and I think the improvements have really helped the article. I do not think, however, that the prose can be whipped and smoothed into shape such that the article tells the reader a compelling story about how the Yosemite area took shape. As it stands, the article is a patchwork quilt of themes; all of them important, but none following a sort of journey that takes the reader from place to place, event to event, carrying him along with eagerness to read the next sentence. I am proud of the article—it delivers the right amount of information—but I cannot see approving it for FA. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be more specific. What type of "themes" are you talking about? If they are content themes, then it would seem that removing some themes and concentrating on others will lead to comprehensiveness issues. If the "themes" you mention are organizational, then I see at least one valid point concerning the ==Human impact== section, which does not follow a semi-chronological order. Everything above that section *does* follow a semi-chronological order, which seems to me to be a good way to organize a history article. I've long wanted to move that section to its own article and merge much of the historical info into the rest of this article. I will try to address your concerns either way. Just please be more specific to make your declaration actionable. --mav (reviews needed) 23:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article gives a nice historical overview of the Yosemite area. Hyphenation does not always comply with MOS:HYPHEN. I will go into the article and make the corrections with detailed notes in the comment area. Bettymnz4 (talk · contribs)
Keep Seems that I haven't expressed an opinion yet, so here it is: Issues brought up during the FAR, lack of citations, content and image problems, have been addressed. Issues with prose brought up during FARC have been addressed by several extensive copyedits. I took care to look for and fix other issues similar to the specific examples brought up. Whether or not these efforts are adequate remain to be seen, but I will continue to address specific and actionable issues. --mav (reviews needed) 02:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed an additional round of copy editing (Sorry about the commas, Mav; they didn't work). Good luck with the review. :-)) --Diannaa TALK 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mav, it would probably benefit you to ping the users above who have voted to delist and work closely with them until you at least get their delists stricken, if not an outright support. An article is not going to be kept here with three outstanding delists, especially from such experienced FA-writers as Malleus and Tony. Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this one at a time. Tony pinged. --mav (reviews needed) 17:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for Tony... --mav (reviews needed) 13:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we wait for Tony, I pinged Lambanog. --mav (reviews needed) 03:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to ping me. My delist vote stands, I'm sorry to say. I have hunted for actionable advice, but I didn't find enough to make me think it could be fixed. I think the qualities of this article are such that it will never be able to smoothly tell the tale of the history of the area. I think that with the varied sources and the many topics covered, it will always be jumpy and patchwork in its prose. I fully support it as a GA article, but not FA. Binksternet (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a minute. The use of many different sources and covering many different aspects of a topic are exactly what is called for in the FA criteria. If you can't be more specific on how that harms the flow of the prose, then I think your delist declaration is not actionable. --mav (reviews needed) 11:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 4 - All specific and actionable concerns have been (hopefully adequately) addressed and used as examples to fix similar issues that were not specifically mentioned. Other copyeditors have also helped. We are just waiting for those people who mentioned those issues to either strike their delist or hold declarations or provide more actionable and specific items that need to be fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 14:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus pinged while we wait for Tony and Lambanog. --mav (reviews needed) 19:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for Malleus, Tony and Lambanog. --mav (reviews needed) 01:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. While this has undoubtedly been improved during the months it's been here I still think that it's awkwardly written and doesn't meet the prose requirements for an FA. Sure, most of the sentences are technically correct now from a grammatical perspective, but there's no cohesion between them. The whole article reads like an almost random collection of loosely related facts with no thought given to creating any kind of narrative flow. An example:

Scotland-born naturalist John Muir first came to California in March 1868 and immediately set out for the Yosemite area. Muir studied the area's plants, rocks, and animals in mid-1869 while employed by rancher Pat Delaney to accompany his sheep and sheepherder. Muir operated Hutchings' sawmill after working for Delaney. Articles written by Muir helped to popularize the area and increase scientific interest in it. Muir was one of the first to theorize that the major landforms in Yosemite Valley were created by large alpine glaciers. This view contradicted established scientists such as Josiah Whitney who regarded Muir as an amateur (see geology of the Yosemite area). Muir also wrote scientific papers on the area's biology.

He came to California? That implies the article was written in California. Why is it relevant to the history of the Yosemite area that Muir operated Hutching's sawmill after working for Delaney? Does it matter to this article where he was born? We're not told where many other of the characters described here were born. If I want to know any of Muir's personal details I can click on his link. Paring this down to its essentials and combining what are clearly two related and too small paragraphs we might get something like this:

Immediately following his arrival in California in March 1868, naturalist John Muir set out for the Yosemite area, where he found work tending to the sheep owned by a local rancher, Pat Delaney. Muir's employment provided him with the opportunity to study the area's plants, rocks, and animals; the articles and scientific papers he wrote describing his observations helped to popularize the area and to increase scientific interest in it. Muir was one of the first to suggest that Yosemite Valley's major landforms were created by large alpine glaciers, contradicting the view of established scientists such as Josiah Whitney, who regarded Muir as an amateur.

I'm not suggesting that's perfect, and I'm sure it could be improved, but I am suggesting that there's a sense of narrative flow in it that's missing from the original. There are also still some straightforward discrepancies that I wouldn't expect to be seeing after all these months. For instance why is it "central Sierra Miwoks" but "Southern Sierra Miwoks"? Surely both should be capitalised, or not? Perhaps strangest of all, after having read this article several times I still have no clear idea of what is meant by "Yosemite area". Is it the Yosemite Valley, a part of the valley, the area around the valley, or something else?

Copyediting, in my opinion anyway, isn't just about checking the spelling and grammar, it's about checking the overall quality of the writing as well. I'm afraid that this article still needs a lot of work. Malleus Fatuorum 12:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking another look and suggesting changes. I get your point and will edit the article accordingly. --mav (reviews needed) 13:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - thanks for all the edits! I'll let you finish and will make sure to use those as examples as well. --mav (reviews needed) 16:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just be popping in and out from time to time, so feel to press on. I just wanted to offer a few more examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about, and how I'd go about trying to get a better narrative flow. One thing that I think really does need to be clarified right at the start of the lead is where exactly this Yosemite area actually is. Is it the area now covered by the park, for instance? Despite my comments above, I'd really prefer to see this article improved to the point where I could in all conscience at least strike my oppose, especially after all the hard work you've put into trying to save it. Who knows, keep at it and I might be persuaded. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Process started. More work this weekend. Thank you again for all the edits! --mav (reviews needed) 21:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit pass done, using your edits as a guide. What else is needed? --mav (reviews needed) 21:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment File:Dairy herd grazing in Yosemite Valley in 1918.jpeg has questionable licensing. It's sourced to a 1989 publication, yet claims to have been published before 1923. I've no doubt that the source indeed dates the photo to 1918, but it's atypical that a listed date would be publication. I suspect, rather, that the 1918 is the date of creation, which is irrelevant to the determination of PD status of published works. As I can't review the source, however, I don't know for certain that this is so (i.e. won't vote delist), but it is something that ought to be confirmed by the uploader. Эlcobbola talk 17:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source is not clear so I removed the photo. Thanks for striking resolved issues. --mav (reviews needed) 21:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 15:06, 31 August 2010 [15].

Shotgun house

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Orleans

There are many paragraphs that have no citation, particularly those that make generalisations about trends. Cite 4 used, multiple times, and 9, are books with no page number indicated, and account for much of the body. There are other parts with tags for citation. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see another editor has added citations, and I see no "citation needed" tags now. Are these concerns all addressed? --doncram (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on it. --JJ98 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are two dead links in the article:
This regards a link for Karal Marling's book _Graceland_ at Harvard University Press. I don't know what was available at the page. A direct URL linking to overview info about the book is this: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?recid=30671 , but that does not provide the specific info cited, that shotgun houses often have just 2 rooms. Perhaps the "cite web" within the article should be changed to just an off-line reference to the book, with its ISBN etc. I certainly don't think Featured Article status should be dropped because a URL needs to be changed or dropped! --doncram (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since this article was promoted to FA status in 2006, I want to proceed to FARC commentary to vote it. --JJ98 (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again i'm not familiar with the process here, but your statement sounds negative to me. Do you mean you want to now force a decision, and that you would vote to de-feature the article, because the current reference is imperfect? I'd rather we fixed up whatever can/should be fixed up, first, before forcing some vote. About this, can't we just replace it by an off-line reference to the book? And towards that, can you point me to an acceptably formatted book reference, to emulate? --doncram (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right, it needs a fix. --JJ98 (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped the URL but added the ISBN for the book. I do not have, did not check the book, but I believe the book-supported claim that some shotgun houses have 2 rooms is pretty innocuous and I expect it is supported by the book, based on previous editors' putting it in. --doncram (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the second URL, within bywater.org, has changed to http://bywater.org/about-bywater/architecture/shotgun-house/ . I changed the URL in the article, which is the first in External links section. --doncram (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like its fixed. --JJ98 (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note these multiple issues:
  1. There are not enough citations to improve the article.
Does this comment still apply, since citations have apparently been added? Also, I don't understand the comment. If there's an issue with citations yet to be addressed, could that be explained out a bit more? Thanks. --doncram (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified Cirt to review the article. --JJ98 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Also, these images have multiple issues:
Could someone explain to me, as I am not familiar with the process here. What are the issues here? Photos are noted as being public domain, etc., which sounds fine. What's the problem? --doncram (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right, these photos are look fine as long they are in public domain, but the article doesn't haven't enough proper or inline citations to improve the article. --JJ98 (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How this going? I haven't seen doncram lately. --JJ98 (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jj98, these reviews and improvement often take a while, always weeks and often months, so please be patient. This article will be moved shortly to the FARC section, but even then it will be at minimum two weeks before the review is closed. If you would like to help, jumping in to edit the article yourself is always an option, as is leaving a politely worded notice on doncram's or other interested editors' talk pages to remind them that the editor article is at FAR and will most likely be moving to FARC soon. Dana boomer (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC) (edited Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I am on-and-off watchlisting this review and noted Jj98's comments in my direction. I am taken aback by all the citatio-needed tags added; i guess the implicit point Jj might be making is that FA article standards have changed and now each sentence should be individually sourced. Is that so? Not sure that is good or helpful. Is there reason to believe there was not actually a specific source for each point, among the several sources given for the article? If there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the original authors' writing, i don't think it adds value to challenge them to provide a specific source for each and every sentence separately. Maybe the original authors cannot spend the time to keep meeting new requirements, as if to prove that they wrote properly to begin with. Are there any specific points that the challenger really doubts?
Anyhow I am interested in the article and wanted to help clear up simple-to-clear-up matters. But I am not the one of the original authors of the article, and have no access to sources other than those linked on-line, in order to provide that detailed sourcing. It may be that some of the new citation-needed tags could be cleared by references to the on-line sources, but I have not been able to check. I would appreciate also if the challenger could check to see if his/her challenges are actually met by those sources available online, at least. Then, are there any remaining items where the challenger actually doubts the accuracy of what's written. Thanks for clarifying, Dana boomer, about how the process works going forward. --doncram (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Each and every sentence does not need a source. Per FA criteria, which links to WP:When to cite, only information which includes quotations, exceptional claims, contentious BLP information or "Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work". General and subject-specific common knowledge does not need references, and paragraphs that are sourced entirely to the same reference do not need repeated references at the end of every sentence. Jj98, it may be helpful if you went back through the article with this in mind - and please also bear in mind that the lead doesn't need references, per WP:LEAD. I haven't done more than glance at the article in the past few days, so I can't comment on any specific tags, and this is more of a general comment than anything else. To clarify slightly what I said above - if work is ongoing on this article, it will stay at FAR/FARC for as long as necessary; the goal here is to improve articles and maintain their status rather than delisting them out of hand. Please let me know if you have further questions regarding the process in general or the way it applies to this article specifically. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the remaining citation needed tags, all of which had been added by Jj. Some spurred two other editors' changes, which i left. I mean this as an improvement to the article and to facilitate this FA Review, which needs to focus only on assertions which are to be doubted for some reason. --doncram (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In this edit Lexein reverses that, with edit summary suggesting s/he misunderstood me. At Talk page, Lexein asserts "The CN tags were put there to indicate exactly which claims were supported by attached citations, and which were NOT." That seems false; the citation needed tags appear to have been added wholesale, indiscriminately (per discussion above), which is why i removed them. I asked Lexein to comment here. --doncram (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
== Citation needed tag removal ==
Discussion continues here, though here's my linked comment in its entirety. I misunderstood nothing, but objected to "will comment" at face value. "Left comment" or "See comment" accompanied by simultaneous posting is much preferred.
Preface: Per-sentence citations are not required, but grouped claims which are not supported by the nearby citation may be justifiably tagged. Some time ago, I read through this article and all of its citations, and found many claims not supported by their nearby citations, and tagged a few myself, and dug up others. Editors have inserted claims, apparently in the hopes that a nearby existing citation will provide cover for the insertion.
I disagree with the removal of any CN tag without proper rationale for each removal. To me, a CN tag has the editorial/moral weight of a deletion, and therefore removal of the CN must be supported as in WP:BURDEN. Not verbosely, just concisely. Verification is imperative.
Doncram wrote:this FA Review, which needs to focus only on assertions which are to be doubted for some reason. The doubt has been stated by the presence of the CN tag. Unless the editor has a history of vandalism or some other historical low-quality edits, the CNs are valid.
1. Any of Jj98's tags which are addressed by distant citations - those should be brought near through use of named refs.
2. Any of Jj98's tags which are found to be based on shallow reading or way-too-narrow scope, should be removed one-by-one, with a concise edit comment for each one, OR listed here.
3. If claims are taken from sources in an alternating way, so as to drive a POV or WP:SYNTH then the section should be rewritten to untangle the citations, or so that the citations can be neatly grouped at the end of the paragraph.
--Lexein (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criterion of concern is sourcing, images YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Per sourcing problems. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep listed (tentative) There are NO issues about images which have been explained. The original listing here cited photos as an issue, but all the photos were already public domain or otherwise 100% okay, as far as I understand. About sourcing, I appreciate that Lexein and others have improved sourcing and can continue. The addition of citation needed tags everywhere was excessive. Uncontroversial facts still tagged, such as benign assertion that there are shotgun houses in small towns in the south, should be resolved by removing the citation needed tags. --doncram (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, I see that the image review above was by an inexperienced editor. I would suggest that you ask User:Elcobbola or another image expert to check through the images, just to make sure. YellowMonkey's "FAC criterion of concern" comment above is just a listing of any and all issues brought up during the FAR process, regardless of legitimacy. Also, from Lexein's comment above, it looks like they have no problem with you removing fact tags, as long as you do it in small doses with explanatory edit summaries, rather than a wholesale removal. Dana boomer (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the distracting image stacking, which I believe to be a violation of the required "professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing" (i.e. there are too many images), I don't note any image issues. I'm unable to decipher the meaning of the image commentary above. By the way, an {{information}} template, while preferred, is not an image requirement. Эlcobbola talk 16:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a licensed video from the BBC, also hosted by ClassicalTV - a network. Trouble is, the vid player there hangs at 30:00 unless you scrub past the defect. Dilemma. So I chose the TV.com link. --Lexein (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struckthrough BBC because it was Channel 4, and a network because ClassicalTV is the sub rosa online streaming free/premium arm of DCD Media, who own DigitalClassicsDVD.co.uk, who released the DVD in 2006. Also found this: "Classical TV was founded by eminent classical music entrepreneur Chris Hunt... four-time Emmy winner". Some bloke of the same name directed "The Search for Robert Johnson." So I'm pretty sure it's licensed, yay. --Lexein (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 06:16, 30 August 2010 [18].

Indian Institutes of Technology

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Ambuj.Saxena, Iitmsriram, Lostintherush, India Noticeboard, WP Universities

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is an FA that hasn't been reviewed since shortly after its promotion in 2006, and which falls short in the realms of referencing and prose. The prose in many areas is cringe-worthy, including "From the academic year 2010-2011 institute will function from" and "Permanent campus...spread over 520 acres is under construction", both from the first section. There are many unsourced spots, some of which are already marked by cn tags. Many of these areas include statistics that at least need a reference so that the reader knows what year the data was drawn from. There are also many dead links, references missing information such as publishers and access dates (for websites) and inconsistent reference/punctuation placement. Dana boomer (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with the terrible prose; it reads a lot like a poor translation.
  • Common Entrance Examination for Design and LAOTSE are both redlinked. Are either notable enough for articles, or should they be mentioned at all?
  • Ditto the redlinks under the Technical and Cultural Festivals section. Also, that section is rather lacking in sources.
  • "Criticism" section should probably be re-titled.
  • "However, and rather fortunately, this trend has been reversed somewhat -- and is dubbed the reverse brain drain -- as hundreds of IIT graduates" — needs a more netural rephrase.
  • Second paragraph of "Alumni" is totally unsourced.
  • Another problem I see is that there are way too many primary sources.
  • Is TopUniversities a reliable source?

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, and this is not a requirement for FAR. Any old FA (especially those 2006 and older) with valid, unresolved tags in place for over a year is ripe for a FAR. Is there a reason that you asked this on several FARs when you could have easily checked for yourself, or, if you thought a guideline was being breached, asked a general question on the FAR talk page? Dana boomer (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standard operating procedure for improving articles is via edits to the article and comments on the talk page. If nothing else it is a courtesy to the editors. True in the current FAR process editors are informed too—when a FAR is already about to commence or underway. It can still give the feeling the article was suddenly set upon. It is the difference between an unannounced and previously scheduled audit; yet I see little gained from the surprise. I ask because I may have missed something on the talk page or the rationale of the nominator. The articles I've made the comment on likely have sufficient followings or active enough talk pages that a comment on them might have been useful. By the way the percentage of successful and unsuccessful FARs should also be made prominent to all participants. Editors should be made aware of the fact that FAR has a greater than 50% delist rate from the outset. FAR can be misleading to those unfamiliar with it. Current documentation is deficient. Lambanog (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the WikiProjects flagrantly don't care. FAR is softer than FAC due to lack of biters, and any wikiprojcet which cares has 80%+ success easily YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also: IIT Kharagpur
sister FA of this article YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criterion of concern are prose, sourcing and inconsistent style YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 06:16, 30 August 2010 [19].

Lost (TV series)

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: SergeantBolt, WikiProject Lost

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel it is lacking in 1b and 1c. The reception section does not cover the final season and needs to be expanded, and there are numerous unsourced claims throughout the article. The Music section is mainly dedicated to listing popular songs that have been used, even though the TV Project's MOS list it as something to avoid. The only context presented for the music is original research. The article was promoted in 2006, and has not been reviewed since. Ωphois 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • File:Main characters of Lost.jpg - No source (WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#10A); No detailed/specific rationale (NFCC#10C); Not minimal extent of usage (NFCC#3B) - why is it necessary to see "all twenty-eight main cast members of the series, plus three significant recurring cast members and a dog" (I count 27)? No apparent significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8) - why is the physical appearance of the characters relevant? No apparent meaningful or unique consuming or makeup in this image.
    • File:Jackfigurelost.jpg - No rationale; No significant contribution to our understanding. Эlcobbola talk 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Comments - this should have happened a long time ago. The article has not been updated in a long time, and some sections are suffering as a result. The article need better referencing, updated information, and an overall copyedit. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 02:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops; thanks for clarifying. I just assumed that this process was similar to GAR. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some problems I saw:
  • Second and final paragraphs of "Cast" are unsourced.
  • "Production" and "Distribution" headers have subheaders immediately underneath. Is this allowed? I think it looks ugly.
  • Last paragraph of "Filming" is unsourced.
  • Second paragraph of "Music" is overly detailed listcruft as already mentioned. No need to list every song the series has used.
  • Tons of [citation needed]s in the Fandom header, and more under Distribution.
  • Is TV Shows on DVD a reliable source?

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criterion of concern are original research, sourcing and comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 06:16, 30 August 2010 [20].

Gbe languages

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: User talk:Mark Dingemanse, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa‎, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Benin, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ghana, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Togo, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nigeria.

FA from 2005, with 1c issues throughout. Significant amount of unsourced and uncited content in the article, whole paragraphs, subsections, etc. Lots of small subsections, very short paragraphs, and one-sentence-long-paragraphs. Two images used, File:Gbe languages.png and File:Doctrina Christiana - Y explicacion de sus Misterios en nuestro idiom Español, y en lengua Arda (first page).png, could use an image review. The article could use some layout improvements, and overall copyediting for flow and ease of readability. -- Cirt (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: note these issues:

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criterion of concern are prose, sourcing and images YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:20, 12 August 2010 [21].

The Waterboys

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, User talk:Sneakease, User talk:Jkelly.

FA from 2005, has some 1c issues throughout, lots of big chunks of unsourced content. Concerns about image usage, two fair use images are used that could be fair use on their respective articles about the albums themselves, but are not necessary in this particular article, especially when free use images are available – in addition, the free-use images could use review. Concerns about quality of sourcing: There was an entire book written about this group, mentioned in Further reading, but not used as a source. Instead, we see lots of cites to websites like MySpace and other personal websites. Lack of comprehensiveness, fails to include info on reception and appreciation, and also could use info on awards received over the years, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing, copyright YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:44, 3 August 2010 [22].

Ike Altgens

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: All listed WikiProjects. Author has been retired for three years.

The article has many unsourced parts, including quotations and conjectures regarding JFK's assassinations. It also uses many non-high-quality non-RSs, such as the last cite, and those to a German hobbyist (#6) No textbooks or scholarly works are used when many are available. Spartacus is not a reliable source. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per criterion three:
    • File:Altgens1.jpg - Not low resolution (NFCC#3B), no rationale (NFCC#10C).
    • File:Altgens.jpg - No attribution of author/copyright holder (NFCC#10A), no rationale.
    • File:Altgens2.jpg - No rationale. If File:Altgens1.jpg is the defining photo (I note use of the singular in "arguably the most famous photograph"), what is the significant contribution to our understanding of Altgens (NFCC#8)? This is not the article on the JFK assassination...
    • File:Altgens blowup.jpg - No rationale. Redundant to File:Altgens1.jpg (NFCC#3A). If discerning this level of detail is actually important to a reader's understanding of Altgens (doubtful - NFCC#8), then that may be an argument to retain the high resolution in Altgens1.jpg, but there's currently no articulated need for a second use. Эlcobbola talk 17:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:44, 3 August 2010 [23].

Ziad Jarrah

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified:Listed WikiProjects and nom

This article is at the top of Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing. Unsourced portions and citation tags throughout YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article's problems are generally minor and mostly amount to fleshing out specific citations to the 9/11 Commission report where needed. The article has not substantially degraded from the version which passed the last FAR, and only one significant new piece of information seems to have arisen, which has been more or less appropriately integrated. I did not notice any cleanup tags besides the citation requests. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Эlcobbola, although none of the issues are unfixable in the space of a couple of days Fasach Nua (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Additional closing note - This was mainly closed due to the main editor not having time to work on it and asking for it to be delisted. It appears to be not far from FA status, and so can be brought back to FAC as soon as the above issues have been fixed, if the main editor so wishes. Dana boomer (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:09, 3 August 2010 [24].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: WikiProject Canada. Original FA nominator, User:CanadianCaesar, not notified as inactive for over 12 months.

I'll keep this brief. I am nominating this featured article for review because of problems with FA criterion 1c. Large chunks of the article, especially in "Interpretation and enforcement" are uncited, which raises questions whether these substantial portions of the article are original research. Aside from the large tracts of unsourced prose, particular statements stand out as being unsourced but analytical, eg "Hence, the perceived Americanization of Canadian politics is seen as coming at the expense of values more important for Canadians. The union movement has been disappointed in the reluctance of the courts to use the Charter to support various forms of union activity, such as the "right to strike".

This article was promoted in 2006 over a fair bit of opposition. I think it needs substantial work to source the article to continue to meet FA standards. Mkativerata (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can save its featured status, but I've tried to improve the citation. [25] Thankfully I have access to a library with some of the books used. LastOthello (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing and original research YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This article doesn't have enough proper or inline citations.
  2. Also, these images have multiple issues:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:09, 3 August 2010 [26].

Nintendo Entertainment System

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: WikiProject Video games, Nintendo task force

This article would clearly not meet today's standard for featured articles. The article has numerous glaring issues:

  • WP:LEAD – For an article its size (about 32KB of prose), the lead needs to be larger and more comprehensive.
  • WP:V – There are loads of completely unsourced content throughout the article, including the following places (fails 1c):
  • Lack of comprehensiveness – More specifically, the Reception section has absolutely nothing in it except {{expand}} tags, and there should be stuff out there outlining the system's reception during its lifespan and lasting impact on the video gaming industry and pop culture in general. This fails 1b.
  • Prose – (I'll take a closer look later and may add to this section) Some of the sections, such as the Video and Oringal chassis/casing subsections are sorely lacking in any structure, and paragraphs are choppy at best and thrown-in at a whim seemingly. But in general, the entire prose needs a good copyedit. Here are some of the more glaring problems with the prose I have seen:
    • The final games released for the system were as follows: in Japan, Takahashi Meijin no Bōken Jima IV (the last game in the Adventure Island series for the system) and, in North America, among unlicensed titles, Sunday Funday was the last, whereas Wario's Woods was the last licensed game (also the only one with an ESRB rating) → seems wordy at best
    • Nintendo's own Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda and Metroid franchises debuted on the NES, as did Capcom's Mega Man franchise, Konami's Castlevania franchise and Square Soft's Final Fantasy and Enix's Dragon Quest (now Square Enix's) franchises. → Seems sorely out-of-place in the context in the "History" section
    • The last paragraph in the "History" section is only one sentence.

–MuZemike 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Source problems:

  • [27] - No proof that this is reliable.
  • [28] Dead link
  • [29] Likely unreliable source. I cannot even access it.
  • [30] Unreliable source. Anyone with an Giant Bomb account can edit that entry. Lack of fact-checking present. The source also claims Super Mario Bros. as one of the launch titles to be released October 18, 1985, which it was not.
  • [31] (note I did change the URL from [32], as it looked like the webmaster moved all of its files on the site into a different folder) - unreliable and no proof thereof.
  • [33] - basically an NES fansite with no reliability shown
  • [34] - same website from #17, likewise unreliable
  • [35] - basic video game fanblog, unreliable
  • [36] - same website as #10, likewise unreliable and unnaccessible
  • [37] - basically a fansite/fanblog and not reliable
  • [38] - same website from #17 and #18 and likewise unreliable
  • [39] - dead link
  • [40] - nowhere close to reliable
  • [41] - A how-to guide on NES repairs doesn't go far enough to verify the problems of placing a Game Genie into an NES.
  • [42] - same website from #17, #18, and #27 and likewise unreliable
  • [43] - This does not look like the official Pegasus website, but rather a fansite, which would make this unreliable as far as verifiying its relevant claims are concerned.
  • [44] - Looks like a basic fansite about various NES hardware with no reliability or fact-checking behind it.

Unverified claims/original research:

  • In most of Asia, including Japan (where it was first launched in 1983), China, Vietnam, Singapore and Hong Kong, ... - verification needed that it was released in China, Vietnam, Singapore and Hong Kong
  • Similarly in India, clones were popular by the names of Little Master and Wiz Kid. ([45]) - not in citation given
  • ... and set the standard for subsequent consoles in everything from game design ... (footnote "f" with [46] as source) - not in citation given. It says Super Mario Bros., not the NES, helped set standards for gameplay and "aesthetical elements" (not necessarily "everything" as claimed)
  • To speed production for the holiday season, ... so they would play on North American consoles. ([47]) - not in citation given
    Reworded to make it clear that citation just refers to the adapters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esm8m (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The last part of that sentence (to speed production for the holiday season) still needs a reliable source to back up that claim. –MuZemike 20:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted that part, since I doubt NoA would ever acknowledge that. Esm8m (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Europe and Australia, the system was released to two separate marketing regions ... Nintendo's newly created European branch take over distribution throughout Europe. ([48]) not only is the source unreliable (see above, but also none of the content is in the citation given.
    Found a citation and added it. Esm8m (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1990, a Sports Set bundle was released, ... four game controllers and a multicart featuring Super Spike V'Ball and Nintendo World Cup. ([49]) - not in citation given
    Found a citation that refers to everything but the games, and added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esm8m (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good except for the "multicart" part, which still needs verification. That part could also be alternatively removed. –MuZemike 20:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed it. Esm8m (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NES consoles sold in different regions had different lockout chips, ... whether the game is compatible with UK/Italian/Australian consoles (A), or the rest of Europe (B). ([50]) - not in citation given
  • The Nintendo Entertainment System was not available in Eastern Bloc countries such as East Germany, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. - unsourced
    Found a source for it not being in the Soviet Union and added it. Removed the mention of other places. Esm8m (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the 1990s dawned, however, renewed competition ... to address many of the design flaws in the original console hardware. ([51]) - original research. Not only is the source unreliable, but also the source claimed that the 16-bit market was the reason for the NES-toploader's failure; the article has it the other way around, saying that the user base for the NES waned, and that Nintendo released the toploader to boost popularity, which is not what the source says.
  • In the wake of ever decreasing sales and the lack of new software titles, Nintendo of America officially discontinued the NES by 1995. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6029220.html) - not in citation given
    Added a source about when it was discontinued, though it doesn't talk much about the cause. Esm8m (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even as developers ceased production for the NES, a number of high-profile video game franchises ... and Square Soft's Final Fantasy and Enix's Dragon Quest (now Square Enix's) franchises. - unsourced
    Added references for each of the franchises - hopefully it's not over referenced now. Not sure what to do about the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esm8m (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, I've moved around the sentences to other places in the article, since they were somewhat awkwardly placed. Esm8m (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The second half looks fine, but the first part (Even as developers ceased production for the NES, a number of high-profile video game franchises ...) still need to be verified. –MuZemike 20:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how to do that, since adding a citation for each of the series mentioned as important would look strange. Esm8m (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Famicom MODEM is a modem that allowed connection to a Nintendo server which provided content such as jokes, news (mainly about Nintendo), game tips and weather reports for Japan; it also allowed a small number of programs to be downloaded. ([52]) - not in citation given
    Found a reference for 'financial services' offered through the Famicom Modem, added it, and edited the sentence accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esm8m (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good (and hence struck out above), but I think you could expand just a bit more with those sources given. –MuZemike 20:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original Famicom featured an RF modulator plug for audio/video output, ... and the top-loading NES 2 featured only RF modulator output. ([53]) - not in citation given. The source only describes the various hookups with the NES and not what type of hookups each system has.
    Reworded to make the NES reference not deal with the Famicom parts, and added a citation for the original Famicom. I haven't found a source for the redesigned Famicom, but I'll look more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esm8m (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Found a source for the redesigned Famicom and added it. Esm8m (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (indicated during the course of the game via dungeon hints) ([54]) - not in citation given
    Offending parenthesis deleted, since it doesn't seem to add much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esm8m (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of special controllers designed for use with specific games were released for the system, ... the LaserScope, the Vaus and the Power Glove. ([55]) - not in citation given, though I think that was completely unsourced to begin with, and then someone added the last sentence with source much later.
    I have citations for all the controllers' existence but the LaserScope and Vaus - would adding them cause over referencing, and should those two be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esm8m (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't think that would clutter stuff do much for another citation. I'd include it. –MuZemike 20:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added citations. Esm8m (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... the slot connector that the cartridge was actually inserted into was highly prone to corrosion. ([56]) - borderline original research. The source says that users, upon dissecting their NES, will likely see corrosion in the connectors; it does not mention that the connectors are likely prone to corrosion (though I think it is, but a source is needed to verify that claim, as correlation does not equate to causation).
  • Nearly all of the first paragraph in the "Hardware clones" section is not in the citation given ([57]), not to mention the source is also likely not reliable.
  • A similar licensing deal ... through licensing to a third-party (non-Japanese) distributor (see also Japan–Korea disputes). ([58]) - not in citation given. There is absolutely no mention of Hyundai or Comboy anywhere in the source.
  • Nearly the entire "Redesigned model" subsection is not in the citation given ([59])

Overall, the referencing and reference quality are absolutely terrible. Finally, is there a reason why half the lead is cited, while the other half is not? –MuZemike 23:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. Should the first half have citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esm8m (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The problem is that it is very inconsistent to only have half the lead cited. Ideally, since the lead should be basically repeating the same information found in the article's body, citations should not be used (this also eliminates clutter in the lead, which help readers) except for verifying direct quotes from people. However, the issue is that much of the information in the lead is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. –MuZemike 18:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still has great potential, but for now this article is just losing it FA-wise. For the past few days, I've been actually thinking of putting it up for FAR(C) myself. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief look, I do have to agree that the article lacks sourcing. This is not a minor topic, so it shouldn't be given any leeway on unsourced material. There is also too many images inline, many of these can be placed in gallery. Also, the article has no critical aclaim/reception which must provide a notable contribution. Finally, prose contains much technical information, often with little to no further explanation. I believe article must live up to 2010 FA standards now, having been promoted 5 years ago. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific on the images and the technical information? The technical specifications sub-section is very technical, but it does seem to be well-linked. In addition, I'll work on the reception/legacy section, but want to get the worst of the citations out of the way first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esm8m (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than File:Squarebuttonfamicom.jpg, File:Nesnesnes.jpg (which duplicates the image in the infobox) and some of the closeups of the microchips the images do add something and the latter wouldn't serve in a gallery nearly as well as they do where they are now.陣内Jinnai 18:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm kind of iffy on the number of images myself, unless it's clear the images are causing layout problems (such as "sandwiching text" between two images), and if they're free (i.e. CC-BY-SA tagged) images, then I don't see a terribly glaring issue with that regard.
That being said, the article does lack anything critical reception/legacy about the NES' impact. (I mean, just go into any "retro" store or hippie head shop and look at all the Nintendo/NES-related accessories and apparel that is out there.) Without the much-needed expansion in this area as well as, arguably, the "History" section, there seems to be quite a bit of undue weight placed on the technical specs of the NES. –MuZemike 18:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one was suggesting we remove any of the images, merely placing some at the bottom of the page in an image gallery. Other articles that use free images do this.陣内Jinnai 18:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a legacy section. It's far from complete, but it hits on some of the major points. Esm8m (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was mostly referring to sandwiching, I think if all images are needed to illustrate particular points, then they should be placed along the right side, instead of left and right. In fact, they can be placed in a single row below the relevant section, such as placing the three controller images at the end of Game controllers section. Regarding technical material — it is in no way bad, and very readable for users with some technical background. But some sentences, like "Additionally, cartridges may contain 8 KB of SRAM and 8,168 bytes (nearly 8 KB) of address space reserved as "Expansion Area."" are hardly explained at all and not wikilinked. Even through wikilinking, they will require the user to check the relevant articles before fully understanding the meaning. But this is not a major issue, I'm just trying to think of the general reader. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all the unreliable sources and replaced with {{cn}}. No reason to keep them in.陣内Jinnai 00:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new editor, won't have internet access for two weeks starting Friday, and am still waiting on a good source, Game Over, but I'd hate to see this article go without anyone trying to save it. It's unlikely that I'll save it, admittedly, but I'll try. I'm sorry if I've made mistakes or if I have an excessive amount of questions. I've sub-bulleted the fixes I can make underneath the corresponding problem. For all the other problems, I'll continue to research and see if I can find anything. Esm8m (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your work in improving the article is appreciated. However, I'm not going to beat around the bush in that I think this article has a long way to go to meeting the current standards for featured articles. Back then, there were much lower standards for featured articles (as well as all articles on Wikipedia in general), but as the quality of new featured articles have increased, so have the standards, and I believe the NES article has not been able to catch up adequately, hence why we're here.
I (or perhaps someone else if they're willing) can look over the changes and see if any of the issues above have been addressed. –MuZemike 07:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and struck through all the non-reliable sources listed above that were removed. However, the above strikes do not take into account those unreliable sources that were replaced by {{fact}} tags; as long as fact-tags are present, there are still significant verifiability problems. –MuZemike 19:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criterion of concern are quality of prose, citations and comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's this going? Esm8m has disappeared for a week and there are unsourced paragraphs and expansion tags everywhere YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should explain - I was traveling for a few days, and I've kind of hit a wall on what to do on this article. I'm willing to keep working, but a lot of what is left may not have any kind of documentation, and the school year is approaching, cutting out a large part of my free time. I'll do what I can, but I think the amount of work needed to get this article back up to standard is beyond the scope of this process. But that's just my opinion. Thank you for the input and patience with me! Esm8m (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a month away YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing seems to have stalled, so I'm delisting it per Esm's comment of apparently being unavailable or not being feasible YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: This article has numerous issues:
  • This section "NES Test station" does not have any citations or references.
  • This section "Reception" needs expansion.
  • This section "Legacy" appears to be written like a magazine article and it needs a cleanup. JJ98 (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/August_2010&oldid=382208140"